Case5:06-cv-05208-JF Documentl 93 Filed05/16/11 Pagel of 6

STULL, STULL & B RODY COUNSELORS AT LAW

10940 WILSHIRE BLVD 6 EAST 45TH STREET 23RD FLOOR NEW YORK NY 10017 LOS ANGELES CA 90024 (212) 9977230 (310) 2092499 TELECOPIER (212) 490 2022 TELECOPIER (310) 2092097

May 16, 2011

VIA ECF The Honorable Jeremy Fogel U.S. District Court, Northern District of California 280 South 1st Street San Jose, California 95113

Re: In re Apple Inc Sec. Litig., Case No. C-06-5208-JF (N.D. Cal.)

Dear Judge Fogel:

I write in response to Mr. Frank's May 9, 2011 letter to the Court. In his letter, Frank claims he is responding to my arguments, presented at the May 6 hearing, that he is not entitled to attorney's fees in this case because (1) he violated California Rule of Professional Responsibility 2-100 by communicating with represented parties and (2) violated Rule 1-400 by making false and/or misleading communications. 1 Frank's letter does not contest the fact that he violated Rule 2-100. However, Frank contests the accusation that he violated Rule 1-400's prohibition against false and/or misleading communications by claiming he has a First Amendment right to do so. Here, Frank is wrong. The First Amendment does not grant an attorney the right to make false and/or misleading claims in a communication to potential clients. As Frank has violated both Rule 2-100 and 1-400, he should not be awarded attorney's fees in this matter.

The relevant facts are simple. After years of litigation, on October 12, 2010, this Court appointed Class Counsel, certified the Class, approved the Notice for the Class, and ordered that Notices be distributed to the Class by October 26, 2010. (Dkt. 129). On October 21, 2010, days prior to the Class Members receiving their Court-approved Notices, starting at about 6:50 a.m. Eastern Time, Frank and/or his Center for Class Action Fairness, LLC (the "Center") published various internet posting disparaging both the settlement and Class Counsel in an attempt to convince Class Members to retain Frank as counsel for the purpose of filing an objection. (See

1 Frank complaint that he did not have time to brief these issues has been put to rest by the briefing contained in his letter. Case5:06-cv-05208-JF Document193 Filed05/16/11 Page2 of 6

May 16, 2011 The Honorable Jeremy Fogel Page 2 of 6

attached Exhibits 1, 2, and 3). In these posting, Frank and the Center stated that the settlement was "outrageous" "illegal" and "that it is an extortionate nuisance settlement, being made because it would cost more to defend the suit than to pay the attorneys to go away." Id. Frank and the Center also stated:

"The Center for Class Action Fairness would love to object to such a blatantly illegal settlement. But it can't do so in a vacuum: it can only do so on behalf of a class member who is being ripped off by these attorneys. Class members are those who bought Apple stock (AAPL) between August 24, 2001 and June 29, 2006 but only people who bought the stock between November 2005 and May 2006 are entitled to recover any money under the settlement, and their recovery is being diluted by the diversion to cy pres. We'd be happy to represent you pro bono if you agree that the settlement is objectionable and wish to object: please contact me. If you're not in the class, but know people or institutions who might be, spread the word." (emphasis added)

Later on the same day, Frank and the Center filed an objection on behalf of Objector Pezzati. The objection was later withdrawn, and Frank and the Center, contrary to their claim they would work pro bono, sought legal fees in the amount of $297,916 for what they claimed was $67,260 in lodestar. See 1f7 Frank Dec. in Support of Motion for Attorney's Fees. (Dkt. 176- 2). The May 6 Hearing followed. On May 9, Frank sent a letter to the Court addressing the issues raised in oral argument. This letter is in response.

Frank and the Center Must Comply With California Rules of Professional Conduct. Frank is a California attorney, with Bar Number 196332. Even if he were not a California attorney, N.D. Cal. Local Rule 11-4(a)(1) states that all attorneys who practice before this Court must "comply with the standards of professional conduct required of members of the State Bar of California."

Frank and the Center Violated California's Rule of Professional Responsibility 2- 100. The Court of Appeal of California has ruled that an attorney does not have the right to unilaterally contact class members after the court conditionally certified the class and appointed and designated class counsel. Hernandez v. Vitamin Shoppe Industries Inc., 174 Cal. App. 4th 1441, 1459 (Cal. App. 2009). Thus Frank's communications with class members violated Rule 2-100(A), which states that "[w]hile representing a client, a member shall not communicate directly or indirectly about the subject of the representation with a party the member knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the member has the consent of the other lawyer." Id.

While not directly addressing his violation of Rule 2-100, Frank claims that the Court should ignore the California court's interpretation of California's Rules of Professional Conduct. Here, Frank is dead wrong. Federal courts in the Ninth Circuit must follow the decision of the Case5:06-cv-05208-JF Document193 Filed05/16/11 Page3 of 6

May 16, 2011 The Honorable Jeremy Fogel Page 3 of 6

intermediate appellate courts of the state unless there is convincing evidence that the highest court of the state would decide differently. Goodrich v. Br/ones (In re Schwarzkopf), 626 F.3d 1032, 1038 (9th Cir. 2010). As Frank does not present any evidence, never mind convincing evidence, that the California Supreme Court would overturn Hernandez, this Court must follow Hernandez. 626 F.3d at 1038.

In addition to the Court of Appeal of California, a number of federal courts have also found that the certification of a class prohibits attorney contact with class members. (See, e.g., Parks v. Eastwood Ins. Services, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2002) 235 F.Supp.2d 1082, 1083 (citing rule 2- 100); Kleiner v. First Nat. Bank of Atlanta (11th Cir. 1985) 751 F.2d 1193, 1207 & fn. 28 [stating, based upon a model ABA rule analogous to rule 2-100, that counsel had "an ethical duty to refrain from discussing the litigation with members of the class as of the date of class certification," since "class counsel represents all class members as soon as a class is certified ..." (fn. omitted)]; Resnick v. American Dental Assn. (D.C. Ill. 1982) 95 F.R.D. 372, 378-379 [class certification barred attorney from communicating with absent class members under applicable rules of professional conduct because "without question" absent members are represented by class counselp. Furthermore, in the face of evidence of coercive behavior by a party opposing a class, district courts may regulate communications with class members related to the notice and opt-out processes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d). Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., 623 F.3d 743, 755 (9th Cir. 2010).

Leaving aside these federal decisions, there remains a strong policy reason for this Court to follow the Hernandez decision. If federal courts were to consider federal common law in interpreting California Rules of Professional Conduct, while state courts considered the state law in interpreting the rules, it "would lead to the undesirable result of creating two different ethical obligations for California lawyers depending on whether a particular representation of a client pertained to state or federal matters." White v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., No. SACV 05- 1070, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117979, at *1546 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2009). Such a situation would be untenable for members of the California bar.

Frank and the Center Violated California's Rule of Professional Responsibility 1- 400. Rule 1-400 prohibits misleading attorney communications. Rule 1-400(A) defines a "communication" to be "... any message or offer made by or on behalf of a member concerning the availability for professional employment of a member or a law firm directed to any former, present, or prospective client ...." In re Morse, 11 Cal. 4th 184, 196 (Cal. 1995). Rule 1- 400(D)(2) proscribes misleading advertisements by an attorney. Id. Rule 1-400(D)(3) also provides that an advertisement must state every fact "... necessary to make the statements made, in the light of circumstances under which they are made, not misleading to the public." Id.

Frank and the Center violated Rule 1-400(D) by communicating to Class Members that the proposed settlement was "outrageous," "illegal," "blatantly illegal" and that class members Case5:06-cv-05208-JF Document193 Filed05/16/11 Page4 of 6

May 16, 2011 The Honorable Jeremy Fogel Page 4 of 6

were being "ripped off by these attorneys [Class Counsel]." Frank and the Center further violated Rule 1-400(D) by proclaiming that they would "be happy to represent you pro bono" if Class Members wished to object, when in truth they were seeking to be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for their services.

In sum, Frank and the Center's above statements are false and misleading because they "stated a wholly biased view of [Class Counsel and] the settlement in inflammatory language in order to persuade class members to opt out" and object to the settlement. Hernandez v. Vitamin Shoppe Industries Inc., 174 Cal. App. 4th at 1455. Their "communications misled members about the substance of the settlement by what [they] did and did not state, [] ignoring the numerous risks and uncertainties of litigation, remaining silent about defendant's arguments, leaving unsaid that the court had reviewed and preliminarily approved the settlement and would again review the matter before giving final approval, and prejudicing class members' view of the settlement before they received the court-approved notice." Id. "Rather than disclose [their] financial interest H, [they] characterized [themselves], rather than the court, as the protector[s] of the class. It is difficult to imagine a more inappropriate end run around the court's supervisory powers." Id.

Frank and the Center cite to In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1978) for the unremarkable proposition that a nonprofit organization has a First Amendment right to communicate with potential clients in a non-misleading manner. See 436 U.S. at 435 (communication at issue not misleading). Here Frank and the Center are missing the point. Their communications are being challenged under Rule 1-400 not because they were merely communications to potential clients. Instead, their communication is being challenged because, unlike the communication in Primus, they were false and misleading.

The Supreme Court has never ruled that an attorney who claims to work for a nonprofit organization has a right to communicate false and misleading statements to the potential clients. In fact, the Court in Primus held the exact opposite. Id. at 439. It ruled that states have a "special interest in regulating members of a profession it licenses, and who serve as officers of its courts" and thus may "proscribe solicitation that in fact is misleading, overbearing, or involves other features of deception or improper influence." Id. And that is it the exact issue here, California's right to forbid misleading and deceptive communications via Rule 1-400.

Frank and the Center also claim that they are not subject to Rule 1-400 because their motive was "not financial." However, as far as "communications" are concerned, Rule 1-400 does not distinguish between an attorney's pecuniary and non-pecuniary motives. "Communication" means any message or offer made by or on behalf of a member concerning the availability for professional employment of a member or a law firm directed to any former, present, or prospective client. Cal. Rules of Prof I Conduct, Rule 1-400(A). In contrast, the term "solicitation" means any communication concerning the availability for professional Case5:06-cv-05208-JF Document193 Filed05/16/11 Page5 of 6

May 16, 2011 The Honorable Jeremy Fogel Page 5 of 6

employment of a member or a law firm in which a significant motive is pecuniary gain; and which is: (a) delivered in person or by telephone, or (b) directed by any means to a person known to the sender to be represented by counsel in a matter which is a subject of the communication. Cal. Rules of Prof I Conduct, Rule 1-400(B).

Moreover, Frank and the Center's claim that they are not motivated by pecuniary gain, and thus their "communications" are not "solicitations" under the Code, is contrary to the facts. At the time of their request for attorney's fees, Frank and the Center had the following lodestar:

Attorney Hours Rate Total Frank 87.3 720 $62,856 Greenberg 3.3 360 $ 1,188 Schulman 13.4 240 $ 3,216 Total $67,260

See Frank Dec. at lf 7.

It is difficult to believe that an attorney seeking compensation at the rate of $720.00 per hour in a case is not significantly motivated by pecuniary gain when seeking objectors to represent in that case. However, the Center is actually seeking more than four times its attorneys' lodestar by asking for up to $297,916.00 in attorney's fees. ($297,916 ± $67,260 = 4.29 multiplier). Here, the Center is seeking over $2,880 per hour for Frank' time, over $1,440 per hour for Greenberg's time and over $960 per hour for Schulman's time. Simply put, Frank and the Center's claim that pecuniary gain is not a "significant motive" for their seeking a Class Member to file an objection cannot be believed when the Center seeks to be compensated at between $960 and 2,880 per hour for its attorneys. Such a claim is absurd on its face.

Of course, by seeking such fees Frank and the Center have shown that their claim to be working pro bono was completely false. While Frank and the Center cite to numerous cases for the proposition that pro bono attorneys should be compensated in certain situations, they do not directly answer the charge that it is false and misleading to communicate to Class Members that attorneys will work pro bono when in truth the attorneys will be seeking hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees based upon a "common fund" theory. What makes the Center and Frank's claim for attorneys' fees objectionable is that they mislead Class Members by claiming they would work pro bono if they objected to the settlement.

In sum, attorneys seeking objectors to represent should not make communications to members of a certified class being represented by Court appointed class counsel because those communications violate Rule 2-100. Furthermore, those attorneys should not encourage Class Members to dismiss Class Counsel and retain the attorneys for the sole purpose of objecting to Case5:06-cv-05208-JF Document193 Filed05/16/11 Page6 of 6

May 16, 2011 The Honorable Jeremy Fogel Page 6 of 6

the settlement by using false and misleading communications. Additionally, those same attorneys should not be allowed to claim attorneys' fees and profit from their misdeeds, especially when those attorneys informed the Class Members that they would be working pro bono. Such communications violate Rule 1-400.

Respectfully submitted,

s/Tzmothy J. Burke Timothy J. Burke

Counsel for Plaintiffs

cc: All Counsel (via ECF) Securities Class Action Clearinghouse (via email) Case5:06-cv-05208-JF Document193-1 Filed05/16/11 Page1 of 2

EXHIBIT 1 PointofLaw.com I PointOfLaw Forum: The illegal Apple backdating class action settlement Page 1 of 1 Case5:06-cv-05208-JF Document193-1 Filed05/16/11 Page2 of 2

On ] v rte 0 Subscribe Follow POL on T nf+ F4a c§ ^ i '.ie i ;rt,; IgAttOYlr StE

3 1 ._..af.n !^/ _._^..,+:...• • site

FORUM FEATURED DISCUSSIONS POL COLUMNS LEGAL EXPERTS ARTICLES BOOKS PODCASTS LINKS MASTHEAD ADVANCED SEARCH

FORUM CATEGORIES: Class Actions

« "ARE WE HEADED BACK TO THE BAD OLD DAYS OF VACCINATION LAWSUITS?" | ARTHUR WOLK V. O LSO N - THIRD CIRCUIT UPDATE »

...... _.-..._.-...-..._.-...-..._.-...-..._.- ...-..._.-..._..._.-..._.-_.-..._.-_.-..._.-...-..._.-...-..._.-...-..._.-..._..._.-..._..._.-..._.-_.-..._.-_.-..._.-...-..._.-...-..._.-...-..._.-..._..._.--..._..._.-.._.-_.-..._.-_.-..._.-...-..._.-...-..._.-...-..._.-..._..._.-..._..._.-..._.-_.-..._.-...-..._.-...-..._.-...-..._.-...-..._.-..._..._.-..._.-_.-..._.-_.-..._.-. ...-..._.-...-..._.-...-..._.: ...... : October _ ...... 21, _...... 20 _...... 10 _ ...... _ ...... _ ...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _ ...... _ .. Share The illegal Apple backdating class action settlement

Ira Stoll and Jim Copland have discussed the outrageous Apple backdating lawsuit resulting in the outrageous Apple backdating settlement. The magnitude of the settlement compared to the original claims demonstrates that it is an extortionate nuisance settlement, being made because it would cost more to defend the suit than to pay the attorneys to go away.

But it should be noted: the settlement is not just outrageous, it is illegal. Under the Ninth Circuit's Six Mexican Growers precedent, a court should not be issuing cy pres that is not likely to benefit the class members. And as the Center for Class Action Fairness noted in recent Ninth Circuit briefing, the American Law Institute has said that cy pres is inappropriate where class members are readily identifiable. Given that the class attorneys are negotiating money for third parties instead of their own putative clients (for their own benefit, no less), there is also a breach of fiduciary duty that raises questions whether the class attorneys meet the Rule 23(a)(4) standard. The settlement is further problematic in that the vast majority of class members are entitled to zero compensation; it is far from clear that the sole lead plaintiff is a member of this subclass.

The Center for Class Action Fairness (which is not affiliated with the Manhattan Institute) would love to object to such a blatantly illegal settlement. But it can't do so in a vacuum: it can only do so on behalf of a class member who is being ripped off by these attorneys. Class members are those who bought Apple stock (AAPL) between August 24, 2001 and June 29, 2006—but only people who bought the stock between November 2005 and May 2006 are entitled to recover any money under the settlement, and their recovery is being diluted by the excessive demand for attorneys' fees and diversion to cy pres. We'd be happy to represent you pro bono if you agree that the settlement is objectionable and wish to object: please contact me. If you're not in the class, but know people or institutions who might be, spread the word.

The case is In re Apple Inc. Securities Litig., No. C-06-5208-JF (N.D. Cal.).

POSTED BY TED FRANK AT 6:50 AM | TRACKBACK (0) Tags:Apple , Center for Class Action Fairness , class action lawsuits , class action settlements , conflict of interest , cy pres

Published by the Manhattan Institute

113 ©0

http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/2010/10/the-illegal-app.php 5/12/2011 Case5:06-cv-05208-JF Document193-2 Filed05/16/11 Page1 of 5

EXHIBIT 2 Center for Class Action Fairness, LLC: The illegal Apple backdating class action settlement Page 1 of 4 Case5:06-cv-05208-JF Document193-2 Filed05/16/11 Page2 of 5

Share Report Abuse Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In

CENTER FOR CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS, LLC THE CENTER IS A NON-PROFIT PROJECT THAT REPRESENTS CLASS MEMBERS PRO BONO.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2010 SEARCH THIS BLOG The illegal Apple backdating class action Search settlement powered by leTM Did you buy Apple stock between 2001 and 2006?

Ira Stoll and Jim Copland have discussed the outrageous Apple Center for Class Action Fairness backdating lawsuit resulting in the outrageous Apple backdating facebook settlement. The magnitude of the settlement compared to the Name: Center for Class original claims demonstrates that it is an extortionate nuisance Action Fairness settlement, being made because it would cost more to defend the suit Status: This morning, I than to pay the attorneys to go away. argued the infamous Bachman V.... But it should be noted: the settlement is not just outrageous, it is Fans: 479 illegal. Under the Ninth Circuit's Six Mexican Growers precedent, a court should not be issuing cy pres that is not likely to benefit the Contact: My email is gmail.com , and class members. And as the Center for Class Action Fairness noted in my username is tedfrank. recent Ninth Circuit briefing, the American Law Institute has said that cy pres is inappropriate where class members are readily Snail-mail: 1718 M St NW #236 identifiable. Given that the class attorneys are negotiating money for Washington, DC 20036 third parties instead of their own putative clients (for their own benefit, no less), there is also a breach of fiduciary duty that raises DONATE TO THE CENTER ! questions whether the class attorneys meet the Rule 23(a)(4) standard. The settlement is further problematic in that the vast Your tax-deductible 501(c)(3) majority of class members are entitled to zero compensation; it is far contribution can be made by from clear that the sole lead plaintiff is a member of this subclass. sending a check to:

DonorsTrust The Center for Class Action Fairness would love to object to such a 109 North Henry Street blatantly illegal settlement. But it can't do so in a vacuum: it can only Alexandria, VA 22314 do so on behalf of a class member who is being ripped off by these attorneys. Class members are those who bought Apple stock (AAPL) Please identify the "Center for Class between August 24, 2001 and June 29, 2006—but only people who Action Fairness" in your cover letter. bought the stock between November 2005 and May 2006 are entitled to recover any money under the settlement, and their

http://centerforclassactionfairness.blogspot.com/2010/10/illegal-apple-backdating-class-action.html 5/12/2011

Center for Class Action Fairness, LLC: The illegal Apple backdating class action settlement Page 2 of 4 Case5:06-cv-05208-JF Document193-2 Filed05/16/11 Page3 of 5

recovery is being diluted by the diversion to cy pres. We'd be happy ABOUT ME to represent you pro bono if you agree that the settlement is TED FRANK objectionable and wish to object: please contact me. If you're not in WASHINGTON, DC the class, but know people or institutions who might be, spread the Ted Frank is the word. (Update: we have one objector, and are talking to a couple of founder of the three-lawyer Center others. Isn't crowd-sourcing great?) for Class Action Fairness and an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan The case is In re Apple Inc. Securities Litig., No. C-06-5208-JF Institute. Mr. Frank was a resident (N.D. Cal.). fellow with the American Enterprise POSTED BY TED FRANK AT 6:57 AM Institute from 2005 to 2009, a LABELS: APPLE BACKDATING, CY PRES litigator from 1995 to 2005, and clerked for the Honorable Frank H. Easterbrook on the Seventh Circuit 0 COMMENTS: Court of Appeals. Mr. Frank, a 1994 graduate of the University of Chicago Law School with high POST A COMMENT honors, has testified before federal and state legislative subcommittees BBlogger multiple times on class actions and other legal issues. The Wall Street Journal has called him a "leading

Blogger i s currently u n ava i l Frank was elected to membership in the American Law Institute.

Blogger is unavailable right now. We apolog VIEW MY COMPLETE PROFILE interruption in service.

Please visit Blogger Status for additional details. ABA Journal article on CCAF Connecticut Law Tribune article on CCAF Forbes article on CCAF Manhattan Institute Point of Law Ted Frank TSA Abuse Overlawyered Volokh Conspiracy Newer Post Home Older Post Wikipedia entry

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

BLOG ARCHIVE

http://centerforclassactionfairness.blogspot.com/2010/10/illegal-apple-backdating-class-action.html 5/12/2011 Center for Class Action Fairness, LLC: The illegal Apple backdating class action settlement Page 3 of 4 Case5:06-cv-05208-JF Document193-2 Filed05/16/11 Page4 of 5

► 2011 (28) t 2010 (64)

► December (2) ► November (6) t October (5) "Cy Pres: A Not So Charitable Contribution to Clas... The illegal Apple backdating class action settleme... $0 settlement in Breyers "Smooth & Dreamy" class a... Appeal bond briefing in Dewey v. Volkswagen The Classmates.com class action settlement rip-off...

► September (5) ► August (8) ► July (6) ► June (8) ► May (4)

► April (3) ► March (10) ► February (3) ► January (4)

► 2009 (22)

FOLLOWERS

http://centerforclassactionfairness.blogspot.com/2010/10/illegal-apple-backdating-class-action.html 5/12/2011 Center for Class Action Fairness, LLC: The illegal Apple backdating class action settlement Page 4 of 4 Case5:06-cv-05208-JF Document193-2 Filed05/16/11 Page5 of 5

Follow with Google Friend Connect

Followers (23) More »

Ir— ANY a M 0 El W MAdAMAM as 's AAA Already a member?Si g n in

http://centerforclassactionfairness.blogspot.com/2010/10/illegal-apple-backdating-class-action.html 5/12/2011 Case5:06-cv-05208-JF Document193-3 Filed05/16/11 Page1 of 17

EXHIBIT 3

Center for Class Action Fairness (4) Page 1 of 16 Case5:06-cv-05208-JF Document193-3 Filed05/16/11 Page2 of 17

Chat (2) 4 Search R Home Profile Find Friends Account

Center for Class Action Fairness I Like Non-Profit Organization • Washington, District of Columbia

L a, Wall Center for Class Action F... • Most Recent People You May Know See All

'rq ^1 r r~ Valentin Vladimirovich AlkAd riend Justice is not blind if you have cash you can get away with almost everything , that why many corporations get away with many things so I say don't buy HP Wall and Nvidia products tell your family friends your boss company tell strangers tell Info them how they rip you off and so call it pos called our lawyer Milberg He needs to be reported to BBB. I want to thank Frank and Everyone with this Friend Activity IgIM11404111111111101da Photos Sponsored Create an Ad Discuss ions May 4 at 12:34pm via iPhone b co m -daily design 041 E:1 Wall Paper Aakash Patel likes this. Get daily design sales About from the world's leading designers at up to 70% ® Aakash Patel That's right. Has anyone made BBB report on this Center for Class Action Fairness, off retail. LLC, a non-profiit program, yet? represents con... May 7 at 9:05pm More Los Angeles Bucket List Center for Class Action Fairness partners.livingsocial.com 479 people like this This morning, I argued the infamous Bachman v. A.G. Edwards case before the 365 Things to do in Los Missouri Court of Appeals, an appeal of a settlement approval where Milberg and Angeles its co-counsel received $21 million while the class got a few million in cash and Likes some likely worthless coupons. It was a pleasure to argue in front of attentive }^ judges, and I'm optimistic that they'll do the right thing and protect the class's Overlawyered interests. May 4 at 9:04am 7 Class of 1975

I t I Look Up profiles from Manhattan '•^ ^, t your high school class m0 Institute for •••• ••• 4 people like this. now. Reconnect with Policy Research J „^ p 1 friends from high

1975 school today. Ted Frank n Phillip Redd Millberg is the devil. They Screwed us in the Nvidia case the same way. Who Searched 4 U @ MyLife May 4 at 1:05pm • 2 people search.mylife.com Find out if someone is Create a Page Joseph O'Campo looking for you on MyL ife! Click Now to get Report Page Anyone watch the latest new South Park episode and feel a certain started Share commonality? “Would you mind loaning me some of your l i pstick MILBERG/HP/NVIDIA because I want to at least look pretty the next time you decide to ‘screw’ me!” May 2 at 12:28pm

2 people like this.

Center for Class Action Fairness South Park has a high priority on my DVR, but I don't think one wants to analogize the ripped-off class members to Cartman, whose complaining was funny because his grievance was so petty and selfish. May 4 at 11:09am

Center for Class Action Fairness

Court rules for NVIDIA Details at the Point of Law blog. I'm sorry, as well as angry. Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2011-05-02 18:29:00 GMT

04 May 2 at 11:53am via RSS Graffiti • Share

View all 20 comments

Bolinda Haggerty IThank you for your efforts Mr. Frank. I would gladly join malpractice suit. Unfortunately I can't contribute funds due to disability. In this day and age it would be nice to have something unshady to come to light. This whole process sucks. I call the vidia hotline today and they said they are shipping replacement computers next week. May 6 at 12:34pm

Center for Class Action Fairness

Illegal coupon settlement in Nevada

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Center-for-Class-Action-Fairness/97879031989 5/12/2011 Center for Class Action Fairness (4) Page 2 of 16 Case5:06-cv-05208-JF Document193-3 Filed05/16/11 Page3 of 17

Chat (2)

Daniel Greenberg of the Center for Class Action Fairness LLC has filed an objection on behalf of two class members to a coupon settlement where the attorney-fee request does not even begin to comply with the basic Class Action Fairness Act requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1712. We are mystified how the plaintiffs intend to justify the settlement; perhaps they will contend that the $10 discount "certificates" issued to the class... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2011-04-29 13:31:00 GMT

April 29 at 6:51am via RSS Graffiti • Share

Center for Class Action Fairness

Reply brief in Bachman v. A.G. Edwards coupon settlement appeal Milberg and several other law firms collected $21 million in quick-pay fees for a Missouri state-court class action settlement that provided face value of $39 million to the class, most of which was in $8.22 coupons. The Center for Class Action Fairness appealed the rubber-stamp approval, and, on Friday, filed a reply brief in the case.... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2011-04-28 12:29:00 GMT

April 28 at 5:31am via RSS Graffiti • Share

Center for Class Action Fairness

Gittin v. KCI USA and Calloway v. CashNetUSA class action settlements In these two California class action settlements over debt-collection practices, one strongly suspects the attorneys are trying to rip off their clients: notwithstanding the clear requirement of Rule 23(h) and In re Mercury Interactive Securities Lit., notice is going to the class without any disclosure of the requested attorneys' fees.... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2011-04-26 19:05:00 GMT

0 April 26 at 12:08pm via RSS Graffiti • Share

Center for Class Action Fairness

Cobell v. Salazar Today the Center for Class Action Fairness filed an objection to the $3.4 billion taxpayer-funded Cobell Indian trust settlement on behalf of Sisseton- Wahpeton Ovate tribe member and class member Kimberly Craven. Congress recently held hearings in response to the class attorneys' fee request of $223 million, which was over twice the $99.9 million they promised Congress they would limit their request to.... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2011-04-20 18:40:00 GMT

04 April 20 at 11:56am via RSS Graffiti • Share

Center for Class Action Fairness

April 18 press release CENTER FOR CLASS ACTION FAIRNESSANNOUNCES MULTIPLE VICTORIESWASHINGTON, DC - Today the Center for Class Action Fairness LLC announced multiple victories in class action objections it filed in five class action settlements that will result in class members ... See More Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2011-04-19 04:12:00 GMT

IP April 18 at 9:27pm via RSS Graffiti • Share

6 people like this.

Patricia Paulson congratulations! April 19 at 3:42pm

Center for Class Action Fairness

Babies "R" Us baby products antitrust class action settlement: McDonough v. Toys "R" Us A class action against Babies "R" Us and manufacturers of upscale baby products--BabyBjorns, Britax car seats, Kids Line and Peg Perego products, Maclaren strollers, Medela breast pumps--over allegedly anticompetitive vertical price restraints has resulted i... See More Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2011-04-18 12:48:00 GMT

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Center-for-Class-Action-Fairness/97879031989 5/12/2011 Center for Class Action Fairness (4) Page 3 of 16 Case5:06-cv-05208-JF Document193-3 Filed05/16/11 Page4 of 17

Chat (2) April 18 at 4:15am via RSS Graffiti • Share

Center for Class Action Fairness

Objectors and fee requests We recently had two victories in two cases in front of the same judge; the question then becomes whether to submit a fee request. There's good precedent for us asking for fees in both cases on the theory that the objection "improved the process," but we take the position that class attorneys should only recover fees rationally related to the size of the class benefit achieved, so, to remain cleaner than... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2011-04-17 16:59:00 GMT

IP April 17 at 10:06am via RSS Graffiti • Share

Center for Class Action Fairness

EA Sports Litigation (Pecover v. Electronic Arts Inc.) Class members getting a notice for this case have been writing me. Dudes: I made my name in the Grand Theft Auto class action, of course I bought Madden and am a class member here.This is a class action certification, rather than a settlement, so there isn't an easy way for me to get involved at this stage.... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2011-04-16 03:31:00 GMT

April 15 at 8:46pm via RSS Graffiti • Share

n Adam Kolakowski Thanks, Ted. April 15 at 9:27pm

Center for Class Action Fairness

Court reduces fees after CCAF objection to HP settlement In January, we discussed a Center for Class Action Fairness objection to a coupon settlement involving HP inkjet printers. That settlement turned out to be even worse than the pathetic one advertised: $5 million in coupons were offered, but the multi-million member class only bothered to file claims for $1.5 million worth of the coupons, with the rest reverting to HP.... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2011-04-11 20:14:00 GMT 41 April 11 at 1:43pm via RSS Graffiti • Share

Center for Class Action Fairness Still no ruling in NVIDIA. I will get email notification of the ruling within 20 minutes of its docketing, and will make a Facebook and blog post within 24 hours of its receipt.

April 7 at 9:07am via iPhone

18 people like this.

View all 5 comments

® Kari Anne Regardless of the outcome, I want to personally thank you, for all you have done in this case. April 18 at 5:47pm • 1 person

Imelda R Ray Thank you for taking the time and effort to fight for us April 19 at 8:51am

Valentin Vlad o dge Still no news abouaboututt ]judge ruling?

April 5 at 12:53pm via iPhone

Richard Stevens Mr. Frank, are you aware of the lawnmower class action settlement? We were to have received compensation by April 2011. Well its now April and no compensation, not even an update!!!!! April 1 at 5:53am

Michael Duncan likes this.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Center-for-Class-Action-Fairness/97879031989 5/12/2011 Center for Class Action Fairness (4) Page 4 of 16 Case5:06-cv-05208-JF Document193-3 Filed05/16/11 Page5 of 17

Chat (2) Center for Class Action Fairness I presume "by April" means by April 30. April 16 at 8:23pm

Richard Stevens My rustic English "by April" means "before" April (before April 1). April 17 at 7:04am

1 Richard Stevens they changed again. We were supposed to get it before April, then before the end of April, now mid-may. April 29 at 4:06pm

Center for Class Action Fairness

April Fools Day and the New York Times I recently treated myself to the new iPad, which arrived this week, and was looking forward to reading the NY Times this morning with that pretty iPad app, only to learn that everything is behind a paywall. The Times has been good to me over the years, but they keep getting fooled by the likes of my former client Eric Turkewitz every April 1, as his 2010 prank demonstrates.... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2011-04-01 11:00:00 GMT

April 1 at 4:33am via RSS Graffiti • Share

Rebecca Ingalls likes this.

Rebecca Ingalls Knock 'em dead. My provider isn't cooperating, so I hope to view it afterwards. I sent the link to my POLS25 class, hope I don't have to do homework on you lol! April 1 at 6:31am

Ben Hurwitz Dizzying. April 1 at 7:42am

Z Center for Class Action Fairness NVIDIA: my role in this case is likely over, but there are class members who plan to continue the fight. A legal malpractice class action against class counsel is likely to proceed if judge rules in NVIDIA's favor at Milberg's behest. If you haven't already, sign up at this website run by a class member very unhappy with the settlement administration, and he'll let you know if there's anything that can be done.

4b., Welcome to FairNvidiaSettlement.com fairnvidiasettlement.com FAIRnvidiasettlement.com provides up-to-date information " pertaining to NVIDIA GPU litigation / class action suit, involving NVIDIA and Milberg LLP

March 30 at 12:38pm • Share

3 people like this.

John Robinson Thank you so much for everything! What you've done for us is very admirible! March 30 at 2:50pm • 1 person

Center for Class Action Fairness

Speaking at University of Cincinnati April 1 I'm apparently a "leading advocate for class action reform." An impressive roster of speakers is going to have to sit through my lunchtime talk, which is part of the symposium entitled "The Principles and Politics of Aggregate Litigation: CAFA, PSLRA, and Beyond." The event will be webcast. Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2011-03-30 14:01:00 GMT 04 March 30 at 7:06am via RSS Graffiti • Share

Center for Class Action Fairness

NVIDIA hearing held March 28 As I discussed on our Facebook page yesterday, I wasn't given our full ten minutes to argue in the hearing, while Milberg and NVIDIA took well over ten minutes each to argue against the motion. This could mean Judge Ware didn't care what I had to say, or it could mean that he wanted to give the other side the chance to exhaust every argument before ruling against them, or it... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2011-03-29 18:39:00 GMT

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Center-for-Class-Action-Fairness/97879031989 5/12/2011 Center for Class Action Fairness (4) Page 5 of 16 Case5:06-cv-05208-JF Document193-3 Filed05/16/11 Page6 of 17

Chat (2) March 29 at 11:39am via RSS Graffiti • Share

2 people like this.

View all 10 comments

Jim Jones Not surprised, go get 'em!!!!!!!!!!!! March 30 at 5:07pm

Jeff Kaas For those of you who don't know there is a whole dicussion here March 30 at 6:36pm

Valentin VlaI'mmgoing to Hi first at all I'm going to thank you for all the help you did for us , second how soon will judge will let us know? Thanks again is

March 28 at 1:56pm via iPhone

— Jason Walvoord Ted and crew, many thanks for the effort today! Regardless of outcome, we've been screwed anyway, but it can hopefully get better from here. March 28 at 12:56pm

J.'.. Ln Maria Del Ruth Z zhs "^{ Is there anything we can do to counter NVIDIA's and Hp's argument of "HP class ! members like the settlement" ? Because I sure as hell don't and I'm sure most 7 r„^. o people who already relinquished their expensive laptops feel duped! March 28 at 11:10am

Chad Uretsky likes this.

View all 4 comments

Maria Del Ruth Btw, thanks for standing up for us. I do appreciate it. March 28 at 11:22am

n Chad Uretsky I agree....I felt duped after I sent my laptop and found out the replacement! March 29 at 11:15am • 2 people

Dave Santos Mr. Frank, I would like to thank you for your effort whatever the outcome might be. May the force be with you! March 28 at 10:50am

Chris Vallowe Yes, thank you so much for all your hard work! We really do appreciate it. March 28 at 12:07pm

Center for Class Action Fairness The hearing did not go as I would have liked. The judge admitted he hadn't yet read the papers. He let NVIDIA and Milberg go first to explain the process for choosing the computer: his concern was whether the experts were neutral and the process was adversarial. I was cut off well before my ten minutes were up.

March 28 at 9:53am via iPhone

View all 13 comments

Ap Guy Thanks so much for the hard work and the update. Nice to have someone who cares about doing things right and not the liars and cheats that Millberg, NVIDIA and HP seem to be. At least 461 (current count here on FB) people who think that the settlement sucks (not just a little disappointed but genuinely getting screwed) and HP has the audacity to say that we "like" the settlement. You have got to be joking. March 28 at 8:25pm • 1 person

n Chad Uretsky Yes, thank you VERY much for all the work you are doing. I think what they are trying to pull is outrageous and just another example of why people always make jokes and remarks about attorneys being corrupt. March 29 at 9:43am

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Center-for-Class-Action-Fairness/97879031989 5/12/2011 Center for Class Action Fairness (4) Page 6 of 16 Case5:06-cv-05208-JF Document193-3 Filed05/16/11 Page7 of 17

Chat (2)

Center for Class Action Fairness NVIDIA argument tomorrow morning at 9 am Pacific; I'll try to post an update here or on the blog by noon Pacific, but my sources tell me that Judge Ware rarely indicates from the bench how he's going to rule.

March 27 at 1:20pm via iPhone

5 people like this.

Jeff Kaas Good Luck Ted! March 27 at 4:28pm

Patricia Paulson Thanks for everything, Ted. March 27 at 8:51pm

Brian Osborne Best of luck Ted! Thanks for what you are trying 0 to do. March 28 at 7:41am

Center for Class Action Fairness http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2011/03/24/dealpolitik-the-good-the-bad-and-the- ugly-of-class-actions/

Dealpolitik: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of Class Actions - Deal Journal - WSJ •— blogs.wsj.com Ron Barusch brings us a parable of our flawed litigation system: The story of a bundle of faulty computers, and the $10 million settlement that cost $13 million in legal fees.

March 24 at 2:13pm • Share

3 people like this.

RECENT ACTIVITY

Center for Class Action Fairness edited their About and Location.

Ap Guy If you have been holding out...check out the new forms. Declaration Form — FAIR settlement - NVIDIA Defective GPU litigation fairnvidiasettlement.com A revised online declaration form is now active. Complete this form only if YOU MISSED your claim filing deadline OR ALREADY MAILED IN your notebook or tablet Filing this declaration form DOES NOT GUARANTEE that you will receive qualifying replacement

March 18 at 12:23am • Share

Mikey N BillieJane Klug Thanks for all the help, I'm holding off sending in my tx1000 that I dropped $2K on and hoping we all get a better offer. HP will never get another penny from me for anything the have their name on or any product that I find out they make. Please keep us up with the progress or if the end of the road has come and again, thanks for all your help. March 14 at 8:38pm

Center for Class Action Fairness

Reply brief filed in NVIDIA case Our earlier post continues to update the docket, most notably with our reply brief filed today.It's hard to believe that multiple millionaire lawyers from multiple law firms all asked the court to apply the wrong legal standard for deciding a dispute over a consent decree accidentally. I'll take it as a good sign that they didn't think they could win if the court applied the correct legal standard and that their... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2011-03-14 18:59:00 GMT

March 14 at 12:17pm via RSS Graffiti • Share

Kari Anne What is fair about getting a replacement that does not have the features for which I purchased my computer? This is no different than someone who bought a 4 wheel drive

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Center-for-Class-Action-Fairness/97879031989 5/12/2011 Center for Class Action Fairness (4) Page 7 of 16 Case5:06-cv-05208-JF Document193-3 Filed05/16/11 Page8 of 17

Chat (2) vehicle, with heated leather seats, CD player, and GPS, being offered a rear wheel drive, cloth covered seats (no heat), am/fm radio and no GPS as a replacement for a defective vehicle! March 13 at 8:57pm

2 people like this.

Center for Class Action Fairness

Interview with the American Lawyer If you ignore the spelling and factual errors (which I hope will be corrected Monday), there's a pretty nice interview of me on the American Lawyer website. Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2011-03-05 12:46:00 GMT 04 March 5 at 5:06am via RSS Graffiti • Share

' Imelda R Ray I hope we end up with a satisfactory resolution. I am one affected consumer, with an HP TX11XX laptop, w remote control and fingertip reader. I submitted my claim, and can not believe that my replacement would be a NETBOOK, inferior computer than that one I own. Had I known that the settlement would provide for a lower end computer, I would've opted out. This only adds insult to the injury. Thanks for all you're doing. March 2 at 6:46pm

2 people like this.

View all 3 comments

Imelda R Ray Best March 14 at 7:41pm

Center for Class Action Fairness lop, NVIDIA class action settlement: Milberg declares war on its clients If there was ever any question of whether Milberg was going to side with its putative clients or its putative adversary, we now have an answer from this Litigation Daily story (behind a subscription wall):Lead class counsel Jeff Westerman of Milberg said i... See More Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2011-03-02 13:07:00 GMT

March 2 at 5:26am via RSS Graffiti • Share

3 people like this.

View all 4 comments

Ap Guy Gee Westerman..ever hear of the term the pot calling the kettle black. You sir are the one squarely standing in the way of us consumers getting a fair replacement. Based upon your fantasy land logic your received settlement fees need to be replaced... with a big fat zero. Keep up the great work Frank!! March 2 at 11:28pm

Center for Class Action Fairness http://www.law.com/jsp/law technologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id= 1202484044867&Mi lberg_Nvidia_Accused_of_Bait_and_Switch_in_HP_Laptop _Settlement March 2 at 11:36pm

Center for Class Action Fairness 111-page NVIDIA filing made Monday; spoke with two legal reporters today; Engadget indicated they will cover story. March 1 at 12:37pm

13 people like this.

Center for Class Action Fairness Is it really possible that three millionaire partners from three law firms don't know the difference between a "record" and an "appendix" in the Federal Rules z of Appellate Procedure? I had to deal with a filing in the *district court* complaining about whether I would include a document in the joint appendix.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Center-for-Class-Action-Fairness/97879031989 5/12/2011 Center for Class Action Fairness (4) Page 8 of 16 Case5:06-cv-05208-JF Document193-3 Filed05/16/11 Page9 of 17

Chat (2) February 28 at 4:04pm

Noah J. Gellner likes this.

Center for Class Action Fairness

In re HP Laserjet and the question of injunctive relief On February 14, there was an hour-long fairness hearing before Judge Guilford in the Central District of California, and anyone who practices in federal court in California knows how rare hour-long arguments are. One certainly appreciates the attention pai... See More Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2011-02-25 13:03:00 GMT

10 February 25 at 5:21am via RSS Graffiti • Share

Center for Class Action Fairness

Motion made in the NVIDIA GPU class action settlement Our January 13 post on the NVIDIA GPU settlement, where class members were promised a “replacement HP notebook computer ... of similar kind and value as their eligible malfunctioning notebook computer" as part of a settlement, but are instead getting a $330 Compaq CQ56 notebook, has generated several updates and over 100 comments.... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2011-02-24 12:56:00 GMT 0 February 24 at 5:00am via RSS Graffiti • Share

RECENT ACTIVITY

Center for Class Action Fairness edited their Company Overview, About and Location.

Center for Class Action Fairness

The return of the $0 Costco fuel settlement You will recall that a class action is pending in Kansas over gasoline retailers' failure to disclose the laws of physics to customers, i.e., gasoline, like all other liquids, expands in higher temperatures. Since a "gallon" is a measure of volume rather than power, someone buying gasoline when it's warm is getting less mileage than someone who buys the same volume of gasoline when it's cool. To some extent, the retailers are... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2011-02-22 11:01:00 GMT 04 February 22 at 3:04am via RSS Graffiti • Share

Ap Guy Hey Ted, A recent development of the NIVIDIA settlement indicated that an "alternative" to the ASUS net book was offered.. A new compaq that still does not have tablet capabilities. Amazingly there are two places now in the court documents that a replacement of equal value would be provide. See the quote below. How could the "inte... See More February 13 at 10:58am

Center for Class Action Fairness

Merger lawsuits I'm quoted in a Reuters story about merger lawsuits and their quick settlements:Settlements often come fast, and plaintiffs' lawyers share in the spoils -- $500,000 in a typical lawsuit, Advisen said."The real problem, I think, is in cases where lawyers wi... See More Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2011-02-12 13:22:00 GMT

R4 February 12 at 5:38am via RSS Graffiti • Share

Noah J. Gellner likes this.

Center for Class Action Fairness

Oral argument in the Bluetooth case The audio file of Monday's oral argument in the Ninth Circuit in the Bluetooth case is now on line. The panel consisted of circuit Judges Hawkins and Fisher and N.D. Ohio district court Judge Zouhary.Briefing:Opening briefPlaintiff- appellees' briefDefendant-appellees' briefReply brief...

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Center-for-Class-Action-Fairness/97879031989 5/12/2011 Center for Class Action Fairness (4) Page 9 of 16 Case5:06-cv-05208-JF Document193-3 Filed05/16/11 Page10 of 17

Chat (2) Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2011-02-09 19:54:00 GMT 10 February 9 at 11:56am via RSS Graffiti • Share

Center for Class Action Fairness http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2011/02/08/09-56683.wma Oral argument in Bluetooth case www.ca9.uscourts.gov 0 9 - 5 6 6 8 3 H A W K I N S , F I S H E R ; C J J , Z o u h a r y ( N . O h i o ) ; D J 0 2 - 0 7 - 2 0 1 1 P u b l i c A u d i o R e c o r d i n g

February 9 at 11:43am • Share

Center for Class Action Fairness

Apple backdating litigation update We opposed preliminary approval of the Apple settlement because there was a possibility that money would go to third parties at the expense of class members. The settling parties assured the court that that wouldn't happen, but have not disclosed the number of claims made on the settlement fund to date.... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2011-01-21 17:09:00 GMT 10 January 21 at 9:35am via RSS Graffiti • Share

Center for Class Action Fairness

Additional briefing in the HP Inkjet Printer coupon settlement case The briefing by the settling parties in support of final approval seemed exceptionally poor, though I admittedly have never been in a position where I've tried to defend an indefensible settlement. We see another quack economic expert report inventing tens of millions of dollars of "benefit" from a worthless settlement.... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2011-01-21 16:31:00 GMT 10 January 21 at 8:31am via RSS Graffiti • Share

Center for Class Action Fairness

NVIDIA GPU Settlement - HP replacement computers In the NVIDIA GPU settlement, owners of HP notebook computers affected by a defective chip had to be thrilled: the settlement notice promised them that, with proper documentation, they would receive a “replacement HP notebook computer ... of similar kind and... See More Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2011-01-13 22:05:00 GMT

Ir January 13 at 2:27pm via RSS Graffiti • Share

7 people like this.

® Matthew Millar Thank you so much Ted for looking into this matter. Many of us feel, quite frankly, ripped off. If nothing else it would be nice to know as to WHY we are getting such a lower-end replacement. January 14 at 2:20pm

Ap Guy How about a class action against Milberg LLP for misrepresenting the value of th TX1000 or for the owners of the NVIDIA settlement site for making false statements that after filling out the forms that the TX1000 is NOT covered? January 14 at 11:24pm

Center for Class Action Fairness

Victory: court rejects Classmates.com settlement We'd like to think our objection had at least a little to do with the end result.This decision is not a big surprise after the court was severely critical of the settlement during the December 16 fairness hearing. We won't know for a while why the court rejected the settlement, but Judge Richard Jones today issued an order stating that he did so, that the parties should return to litigation, and... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2011-01-13 21:37:00 GMT

January 13 at 1:56pm via RSS Graffiti • Share

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Center-for-Class-Action-Fairness/97879031989 5/12/2011 Center for Class Action Fairness (4) Page 10 of 16 Case5:06-cv-05208-JF Document193-3 Filed05/16/11 Page11 of 17

Chat (2)

Jim Copland likes this.

Center for Class Action Fairness

Press coverage of the Bachman case In Litigation Daily, Forbes.com, and the Washington Times. Also Amy Alkon's blog.... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2011-01-12 01:51:00 GMT 44 January 11 at 6:00pm via RSS Graffiti • Share

Center for Class Action Fairness

Bachman v. A.G. Edwards coupon class action settlement appeal Our unsuccessful objection to the Bachman v. A.G. Edwards settlement, which consisted almost entirely of time-restricted non-transferable $8.22 coupons, received press coverage at the time. The question of whether to value a coupon at full face value or at the actual (or reasonably anticipated) redemption rate is a question of first impression in Missouri state courts; our appellate brief was filed Monday.... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2011-01-11 01:26:00 GMT 04 January 10 at 5:34pm via RSS Graffiti • Share

Center for Class Action Fairness

Oral argument scheduled in the Bluetooth case The Ninth Circuit has scheduled oral argument in the Bluetooth case for Monday, February 7, 9 a.m., in the federal courthouse in Pasadena. (Five other cases are on the calendar, so I probably won't get my fifteen minutes until after 10 a.m.) I'm undefeated (well, ok, 1-0) in that courthouse.... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2011-01-06 01:16:00 GMT 44 January 5 at 5:41pm via RSS Graffiti • Share

Center for Class Action Fairness

In re HP Inkjet Printer Litigation objection If I were to buy a three-pack of color ink for my inkjet printer today, it would cost me $42.99 at HP.com and $36.99 at Amazon.com . That's not a big deal— unless HP is trying to settle a class action by giving class members $2 coupons that can only be used at HP.com (and can't be transferred or stacked, and expire in six months).... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2010-12-30 23:52:00 GMT

December 30, 2010 at 3:54pm via RSS Graffiti • Share

Kimberly Evans Schratwieser likes this.

Center for Class Action Fairness

Objection in Ercoline v. Unilever (Breyers Smooth & Dreamy) class action We had to mail it to the court rather than electronically file it so it may not immediately show up in the docket, but today the District of New Jersey will receive my objection to the $0 settlement in Ercoline v. Unilever, No. 10-cv- 1747. Earlier.... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2010-12-13 13:30:00 GMT 0 December 13, 2010 at 8:13am via RSS Graffiti • Share

Center for Class Action Fairness

Kellogg's Frosted Mini-Wheats class action settlement In the Kellogg's Frosted Mini-Wheats class action settlement, class members (those who purchased the cereal on certain dates in 2008 and 2009) who submit claims will receive $5/box for up to three boxes of purchased Frosted Mini-Wheats, with claims pro-rated if there are more than $2.75 million in claims. If there is less than $2.75 million in claims, money goes to a charity that has yet to be named.... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2010-11-29 14:01:00 GMT 04 November 29, 2010 at 6:18am via RSS Graffiti • Share

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Center-for-Class-Action-Fairness/97879031989 5/12/2011

Center for Class Action Fairness (4) Page 11 of 16 Case5:06-cv-05208-JF Document193-3 Filed05/16/11 Page12 of 17

Chat (2) Holt Lackey How much evidence do I need to prove that I bought ` frosty mini-wheats in the relevant time frame? More likely than not I did, but I don't have receipts or other evidence. November 30, 2010 at 8:30pm

Z Center for Class Action Fairness Press coverage Not often that you see class actions discussed on ESPN.com , but Tuesday Morning Quarterback gave us a shout-out for our objection in the Classmates case.Karen Lee Torre (of Ricci fame) writes a very complimentary piece in the Connecticut Law Tribune about CCAF's work in the Apple settlement. We're even getting praise from the trial-lawyer site "Lawyers and Settlements." Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2010-11-23 13:44:00 GMT 0 November 23, 2010 at 5:47am via RSS Graffiti • Share

Z Center for Class Action Fairness In re Classmates.com class action settlement objection We filed our objection late Thursday, and submitted ten other pro se objections that people took the trouble to send us for forwarding. Is a settlement that pays class members $117 thousand worth $117 thousand or, as the plaintiffs claim, $9.5 million? We invoke Wile E. Coyote in exploring what seems to be an obvious answer. The attorneys are asking for $1.05 million for a settlement that Gregg Easterbrook describes as... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2010-11-19 09:13:00 GMT V November 19, 2010 at 1:22am via RSS Graffiti • Share

Center for Class Action Fairness

Records on appeal Under Fed. R. App. Proc. 30(b), appellants and appellees are to coordinate the production of a joint record on appeal, the appendix of the relevant filings and transcripts from the lower court proceedings to assist the appellate court in their review of the case. A number of courts of appeal, including the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, have very common-sense approaches to this: they've established local rules whereby each side submits their... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2010-11-18 00:49:00 GMT

November 17, 2010 at 5:01pm via RSS Graffiti • Share

Center for Class Action Fairness

In re Apple Inc. Securities Litigation: parties modify settlement You may recall that I was not pleased with an Apple settlement that provided for $2.5 million to go to a series of universities and law schools with "corporate governance" programs (two of which were affiliated with the lead plaintiffs' counsel) instead of to the purportedly injured class members. (See also coverage from Ira Stoll, Jim Copland, John Carney, and Lyle Roberts.) Such "cy pres" awards are a breach of class... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2010-11-16 18:45:00 GMT 10 November 16, 2010 at 10:54am via RSS Graffiti • Share

Center for Class Action Fairness

Google Buzz class action settlement Notice went out today, and five separate people have emailed me in the last hour about the Google Buzz settlement, which I've been tracking since it was first announced a couple of weeks ago. It flunks Rule 23, but, believe it or not, is not the worst settlement in the world (we have four cases pending in Ninth Circuit courts alone that are worse, including one in in Judge Ware's court). ... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2010-11-02 22:16:00 GMT 10 November 2, 2010 at 3:29pm via RSS Graffiti • Share

Center for Class Action Fairness It's always amusing when it takes two BigLaw lawyers to make a phone call to tell me that another BigLaw lawyer is going to call me later. October 29, 2010 at 2:27pm

3 people like this.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Center-for-Class-Action-Fairness/97879031989 5/12/2011 Center for Class Action Fairness (4) Page 12 of 16 Case5:06-cv-05208-JF Document193-3 Filed05/16/11 Page13 of 17

Chat (2) Michael Cernovich They gotta make their billables somehow. "strategy session .25" October 29, 2010 at 4:10pm • 1 person

David Wisniewski Happens in every case I'm in with BigLaw on the other side. They overstaff and overbill the heck out of it. October 30, 2010 at 9:26am

Center for Class Action Fairness

"Cy Pres: A Not So Charitable Contribution to Class Action Practice" I'm honored that Skadden's John Beisner, one of the world's leading class action attorneys, Jessica Miller, and Jordan Schwartz today released a new paper on cy pres that heavily relies upon my work and the work of the Center for Class Action Fairness in the AOL case, even singling out that case as an example of abusive cy pres.... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2010-10-27 16:02:00 GMT

October 27, 2010 at 9:26am via RSS Graffiti • Share

Center for Class Action Fairness

The illegal Apple backdating class action settlement Did you buy Apple stock between 2001 and 2006? Ira Stoll and Jim Copland have discussed the outrageous Apple backdating lawsuit resulting in the outrageous Apple backdating settlement. The magnitude of the settlement compared to the original claims demonstrates that it is an extortionate nuisance settlement, being made because it would cost more to defend the suit than to pay the attorneys to go away.But it should be noted: the settlement... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2010-10-21 10:57:00 GMT

ON October 21, 2010 at 4:25am via RSS Graffiti • Share

Center for Class Action Fairness

$0 settlement in Breyers "Smooth & Dreamy" class action Russell Jackson adds to my workload by drawing my attention to Ercoline v. Unilever United States, Inc., Civ. A. No. 2:10-cv-01747-SRC-MAS (D.N.J.), a settlement of $0 for the class, and $200,000 for the attorneys. This runs into the Murray v. GMAC problem we've repeatedly discussed in other objections. Because I'm a member of the class of purchasers of Breyers Smooth & Dreamy ice cream products, I will be objecting; to deter objections,... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2010-10-14 15:24:00 GMT nOctober 14, 2010 at 8:36am via RSS Graffiti • Share Dan Bularzik I really like the part where you're required to "provide a detailed list of any other objections by that objector to any class action settlements submitted in any court, whether state, federal or otherwise, in the United States in the previous five (5) years."

They know you're coming. :) October 14, 2010 at 10:17am

Dan Steinberg Haven't read the case yet, but I'm wondering about the content. "Your Honor, while we acknowledge that the defendant's product is satisfactorily smooth, we believe it has materially misrepresented its 'dreaminess,' as that term is commonly understood by the consumer."

Good luck! October 14, 2010 at 10:25am • 1 person

Dan Steinberg Crackers, it's almost that bad. You do fine work. October 14, 2010 at 11:13am

Center for Class Action Fairness

Appeal bond briefing in Dewey v. Volkswagen Trial lawyers often say that they care about access to justice, but that principle seems to go out the window when it comes to objectors to unfair class action settlements that might interfere with attorneys' fees.In Dewey v. Volkswagen, currently pending ... See More Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2010-10-12 10:36:00 GMT

0 1

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Center-for-Class-Action-Fairness/97879031989 5/12/2011 Center for Class Action Fairness (4) Page 13 of 16 Case5:06-cv-05208-JF Document193-3 Filed05/16/11 Page14 of 17

Chat (2) October 12, 2010 at 3:59am via RSS Graffiti • Share

Center for Class Action Fairness

The Classmates.com class action settlement rip-off You may have been one of the millions of people to receive a settlement notice regarding a class action against Classmates.com ; the settlement notice implied that class members would receive $9.5 million (though only $2-$3 per person, and that mostly in coupons) and the attorneys would ask for $1.3 million.... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2010-10-09 11:49:00 GMT

0 October 9, 2010 at 4:53am via RSS Graffiti • Share

Center for Class Action Fairness

Crowd-sourcing strategy Ok, readers who are appellate attorneys. We have an appeal pending in the Ninth Circuit; briefing is completed. In mid-August, we filed a 28(j) letter briefly discussing a new appellate decision; the letter was fastidious in restricting itself to the narrow constraints of FRAP 28(j). Yesterday, more than six weeks later, one set of appellees filed a 28(j) letter of their own—but it makes 200 words of argument divorced from that... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2010-09-29 13:36:00 GMT

Ril September 29, 2010 at 6:36am via RSS Graffiti • Share

Center for Class Action Fairness

Watch the Center on "Stossel" tonight The Center for Class Action Fairness will be featured on "Stossel" tonight: Fox Business News, 9 PM and midnight Eastern. I talk with John Stossel about some of the Center's cases, and, in the show's final segment, appear at a roundtable with Mark Lanier and Marie Gryphon.... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2010-09-23 11:14:00 GMT 04 September 23, 2010 at 4:29am via RSS Graffiti • Share

Monique Bordeaux Wilson Labarre likes this.

Center for Class Action Fairness

Some case updates In Lonardo v. Travelers Insurance, our objection resulted in a $2 million improvement in the settlement. We maintained the objection, and the court approved the settlement; we straightforwardly acknowledged that the court "could" approve the improved settl... See More Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2010-09-20 07:16:00 GMT

4h September 20, 2010 at 12:36am via RSS Graffiti • Share

Center for Class Action Fairness

"The Trouble with Coupons" "Coupons are not a valid substitute for money in many situations outside grocery shopping."But I probably can't cite to that in a brief. Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2010-09-19 14:37:00 GMT 44 September 19, 2010 at 7:53am via RSS Graffiti • Share

2 people like this.

Ben Hurwitz But, I will accept a valid coupon as a finder's fee. September 19, 2010 at 8:12am

Frank Bednarz Attach it as an exhibit. Either that, or attach a reproduceable Subway coupon as a superior form of relief. September 19, 2010 at 12:15pm

Center for Class Action Fairness The "Stossel" program with the Center will air September 23, 9 PM Eastern, Fox Business Network. September 14, 2010 at 6:01am

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Center-for-Class-Action-Fairness/97879031989 5/12/2011 Center for Class Action Fairness (4) Page 14 of 16 Case5:06-cv-05208-JF Document193-3 Filed05/16/11 Page15 of 17

Chat (2)

4 people like this.

Eddie Sweet Of course we can not watch the program in Canada as the CRTC (communist regulation of television commission is anti american but pro british TV) September 14, 2010 at 6:56am

Center for Class Action Fairness

One more Sears brief Plaintiffs and defendants filed three briefs Tuesday and Wednesday before the Friday fairness hearing in the Sears Holding derivative action. And I had a plane to Baton Rouge to catch at 6 am Thursday. So I got to relive my Stakhanovite days at a law firm by writing a brief in response to the one I received at 5 pm on Wednesday in the limited time I had available. Apologies for... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2010-09-10 03:55:00 GMT 04 September 9, 2010 at 9:09pm via RSS Graffiti • Share

Center for Class Action Fairness

Stockholm Syndrome in the Nachsin v. AOL case CCAF filed its reply brief today in the Nachsin v. AOL appeal.The principal- agent problem does not just affect class action plaintiffs' attorneys enriching themselves at the expense of their putative clients. I see it far too often in the case of class action defense attorneys beholden to the billable hour at the expense of their clients.... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2010-09-02 20:20:00 GMT 04 September 2, 2010 at 1:35pm via RSS Graffiti • Share

Center for Class Action Fairness

Professor John Palmer on the Center for Class Action Fairness Professor John Palmer has some very generous things to say about me and the Center for Class Action Fairness on his excellent economics blog. Though I should note that we've never intervened on behalf of defendants; all of our work is plaintiff-side on behalf of consumers or shareholders.... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2010-08-30 17:29:00 GMT

August 30, 2010 at 10:49am via RSS Graffiti • Share

John Palmer When I wrote that, I was thinking of the shareholders as the defendants in most instances. Was that wrong? August 30, 2010 at 12:27pm

Center for Class Action Fairness If the suit is legitimate, then ideally, the offending directors and officers are paying the shareholders and lawyers. In practice, the shareholders (or their insurers, which end up charging them for the privilege) end up paying the lawyers, but they're not technically the defendants. August 31, 2010 at 4:20am

Center for Class Action Fairness

Update on Sears Holding Corp. derivative shareholder suit Plaintiffs filed an opposition; I filed a reply. The hearing has been moved from today to September 10, 9:30 AM.... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2010-08-27 13:12:00 GMT

R4 August 27, 2010 at 6:27am via RSS Graffiti • Share

Center for Class Action Fairness

Appeal bond struck down Imagine our surprise when we checked the docket in the Bachman case in late July (after checking it weekly since we filed our appeal) and learned that the judge had backdated an order requiring us to file a $325,000 appeal bond and then never served it on us or had it placed in the docket until a month later.... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2010-08-26 13:21:00 GMT

41 August 26, 2010 at 6:35am via RSS Graffiti • Share

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Center-for-Class-Action-Fairness/97879031989 5/12/2011 Center for Class Action Fairness (4) Page 15 of 16 Case5:06-cv-05208-JF Document193-3 Filed05/16/11 Page16 of 17

Chat (2)

Center for Class Action Fairness Happiness is not having to finish a reply brief because the Missouri Court of Appeals granted our motion to strike an illegal $325,000 appeal bond order that the district court imposed to attempt to prevent us from appealing her approval of a settlement that paid the attorneys $21M, while only giving the class $5M in cash and $34M in coupons. August 23, 2010 at 7:25am

Lesley Stevens likes this.

Eddie Sweet Wish we had someone like Ted Frank here in Canada to hold all the money grubbing class action lawyers accountable. August 23, 2010 at 8:33pm

Center for Class Action Fairness

Against derivative shareholder strike suits: Sears Holding Corporation, Robert F. Booth Trust v. Crowley In the 1998 case of Felzen v. Andreas, the Seventh Circuit suggested that it was looking for an opportunity to take action against derivative shareholder strike suits, suits where a shareholder purportedly sues on behalf of the corporation, but in reality is seeking legal extortion to drop the suit:Rule 23.1 provides for notice to shareholders only in the event of dismissal or settlement, so that other investors may contest the faithfulness... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2010-08-17 13:00:00 GMT

04 August 17, 2010 at 6:20am via RSS Graffiti • Share

Center for Class Action Fairness

Court rejects settlement in Costco fuel case Today's a busy day (there were filings in three different pending objections and appeals, two of them by us), but we'll have to postpone discussion of those cases to note that, on Friday, the U.S. District Court in Kansas rejected the $0-for-the-class/$10M-for-the-attorneys settlement in the Costco Fuel case that we argued in April.... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2010-08-16 20:45:00 GMT

R4 August 16, 2010 at 1:45pm via RSS Graffiti • Share

Center for Class Action Fairness http://www.cjac.org/blog/2010/08/whats-worse-than-getting-a-cou/index.html What's Worse Than Getting a Coupon? Getting Nothing at All! www.cjac.org Q: What's worse than a class action lawsuit settlement that provides millions of dollars for trial lawyers and a coupon for the alleged victims? A: A settlement that provides millions of dollars for plaintiffs' attorneys and absolutely nothing for the...

August 12, 2010 at 2:40pm • Share

2 people like this.

Center for Class Action Fairness

Amicus brief in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion The Ninth Circuit’s holding in Concepcion v. AT&T Mobility, barring an arbitration clause that prohibits class actions as "unconscionable," rests upon a belief in the exceptionalism of class actions, namely, that they are a uniquely superior form of dispute resolution the availability of which is necessary to vindicate consumer rights.... Source: Center for Class Action Fairness Published: 2010-08-10 09:53:00 GMT 04 August 10, 2010 at 3:16am via RSS Graffiti • Share

Center for Class Action Fairness We use a Seinfeld episode to help explain why a settlement approval should be reversed by the Ninth Circuit. Center for Class Action Fairness: In re Yahoo! Ninth Circuit appeal centerforclassactionfairness.blogspot.com

August 9, 2010 at 3:34pm • Share

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Center-for-Class-Action-Fairness/97879031989 5/12/2011 Center for Class Action Fairness (4) Page 16 of 16 Case5:06-cv-05208-JF Document193-3 Filed05/16/11 Page17 of 17

Chat (2)

Center for Class Action Fairness Miller-McCune interviews Ted Frank about class actions in the August 3 issue. August 9, 2010 at 12:42am

Center for Class Action Fairness http://www.pointoflaw.com/ archives/2010/08/class-actions-i. php August 9, 2010 at 12:42am

Older Posts

I I Facebook © 2011 ' English (US) About ' Advertising ' Create a Page ' Developers ' Careers ' Privacy ' Terms ' Help

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Center-for-Class-Action-Fairness/97879031989 5/12/2011